Re: OT: Elephants Can't Dance
Neil Rieck wrote:
As others have pointed out elsewhere, maybe OpenVMS should be put into
the public domain under the GPL (general public license).
Public domain and GPL are not compatible.
It could be open source under GPL.
I don't think the idea would make much sense.
The existing VMS customers will still consider moving
to a more future proof platform.
It would not get many new customers - there are plenty
of open source operating systems out there, so being
open source is not unique in any way.
On the flip
side, OpenVMS should be sold to a company which currently has no OS so
there is no sibling rivalry.
1) Intel (they still use VMS in their fabs)
2) Oracle (VMS still goes hand-in-hand with RDB)
3) IBM (their field services people maintain VMS
4) SUN (they don't seem to be willing to pull-the-plug on any project)
Would have made sense 10 years ago.
I doubt that any of these companies would be interested.
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning
... >> corporate america, it is open source. ... whole point of the GPL is to keep code open now, ... embodiment of the spirit of original Copyright. ... into the public domain, I am no longer living and my company is no ...
- Re: "Open DStar"
... In fact, as far as I know, it is impossible to abandon copyright ("put into the public domain") in the UK, and it is controversial whether work other than by federal government, can be put into the public domain before its copyright expires in the USA. who has the right to give permission and a clear document giving the nature of that permission, including the reservation on it.) ... challenging the restrictions on the GPL is normally done by people who want to freeload and use the code in proprietary software. ... If you are not in that position, I'd point out that the anarchist position is likely to reduce the amount of open source software, because, already a lot of people feel that the GPL doesn't meet their desires to avoid commercial exploitation and forcing every open source project to use a BSD-like licence will just result in those people closing their source code. ...
- does this multi-value product exist?
... Obviously I am a GPL fan and to the best of my knowledge there is ... So the Open Source community feels helpless to fight the M$ cash pile ... > His choice of words was awkward but OpenQM _is_ only Open for Linux ... >>as GPL infection. ...
- Re: Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy
... others had released under the GPL - they claimed that since they owned ... the other possibility for why it is rarely done is that valuable copyrighted code rarely ends up in serious open source projects without the owner's permission - major open source projects are very careful about who contributes and where the code comes from. ... I'm sure there are lots of cases of sections of copyrighted code ending up in open source code under a different license, but only in rare cases is it worth pursuing that sort of infringement. ... For those with other programming jobs, it makes sense to clarify the position with your employer before contributing to open source projects. ...
- Re: The Open Source Barrier
... wholly consistent (and plenty of reason to assume the opposite). ... >> web-page source), it is, by default, open source (even if it's legally ... >> I think that taken in isolation, the GPL is a bit extreme. ... > People can infect themselves with Real Worldviruses intentionally ...